California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Library Faculty Publications John M. Pfau Library 3-2017 ‘Heave Half a Brick at Him’: Hate Crimes and Discrimination against Muslim Converts in Late Victorian Liverpool Brent D. Singleton California State University, San Bernardino, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/library-publications Part of the History of Religion Commons, and the Islamic Studies Commons Recommended Citation Singleton, Brent D., "‘Heave Half a Brick at Him’: Hate Crimes and Discrimination against Muslim Converts in Late Victorian Liverpool" (2017). Library Faculty Publications. 39. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/library-publications/39 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the John M. Pfau Library at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ‘Heave Half a Brick at Him’: Hate Crimes and Discrimination against Muslim Converts in Late Victorian Liverpool ____________________________________ BRENT D. SINGLETON Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 1, March 2017, pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.1080/13602004.2017.1294376 Abstract Throughout the existence of the Liverpool Moslem Institute, 1887-1908, there were many incidents of discrimination, intimidation, violence and other acts of hate directed toward the British converts to Islam. This was particularly evident during the first decade after the group’s founding. The band of Muslims, led by Sheik Abdullah William Henry Quilliam, faced continued opposition, be it disruptions of events and religious services, or violent street fighting. This article explores the incidents of hate and discrimination, the milieu in which they occurred, and the reaction of the Muslim community. A brief comparison to the experience of the contemporaneous American Muslim converts also is presented. Introduction A history of violence against England’s religious minorities spans at least ten centuries. One of the earliest recorded events occurred in 1190 AD when as many as 150 Jews were killed in a wave of violence that spread across the country. Anti-Semitic violence dotted English history up through the twentieth century. As well, beginning in the sixteenth century, state sponsored anti- Catholicism turned increasingly violent and became murderous by the eighteenth century during wars with France and Spain, leading to brutality against Catholics of all nationalities residing in Britain. More than 200 people died during this period of strife.1 Again in the nineteenth century, episodes of anti-Irish, anti-Catholic bloodshed erupted. Despite the British Empire’s vast worldwide holdings, large segments of the populace living at its heart feared and loathed immigrants and unfamiliar ideas. Panikos Panayi notes, “No newcomers who have entered Britain in the last two centuries have escaped hostility on a significant scale.”2 With a bit of gallows humor, a cartoon in Punch from the 1870s satirized the English street’s inclination towards violence when confronted with the unknown. In it, one man asks, “Who is that?” and another replies, “Why he’s a stranger,” to which the first retorts, “Heave half a brick at him.” Liverpool experienced outbreaks of sectarian violence in the 1830s and 1840s, and by the mid-1880s emerged as the center of anti-Irish, antagonism.3 Ron Geaves comments on the city’s sectarianism, “Children in Liverpool were brought up from an early age to be aware of the symbols of their own religious denomination, and to regard adherents of even rival Christian 1 denominations in terms of a series of hostile stereotypes.”4 Thus, it was not astonishing that Liverpool’s bigots were primed for a reaction to Muslim converts in the late 1880s. In May 1887, William Henry Quilliam, solicitor and temperance advocate, delivered a lecture on “Fanatics and Fanaticism” to the Liverpool Temperance League. Otherwise unremarkable, the speech caused a stir when Quilliam introduced Islam and extolled its prohibition against intoxicants. He delivered the same lecture a month later to the Birkenhead Workingmen’s Temperance Association at Queen’s Hall. There, he went a step further, declaring his conversion to Islam. The Christian members of the Liverpool Temperance League were alarmed at his conversion and reports of attendees’ interest in Islam. The League published the entire lecture in pamphlet form, but soon replaced it with a copy excluding the sections on Islam. Incensed, Quilliam threatened legal action if the unredacted version was not published. In response, the League withdrew all copies and refused to publish the tract altogether. Quilliam was stricken from the lecture roster of both the League and the Young Men’s Temperance Society. Another temperance organization, the Independent Order of Good Templars, for which Quilliam was an officer, banned his membership.5 These were the first of many acts of discrimination against Muslim converts in Liverpool over the succeeding two decades. This essay presents a chronological exploration of the discrimination and hate crimes directed toward the Liverpool Muslim converts and the environment in which these events occurred. For the purposes of this study, hate crimes and discrimination are defined as: physical and attempted physical violence on people or property; threats and intimidation; insulting behavior; interruption of religious services, lectures, and celebrations; or vandalism, theft, and loss of employment and other opportunities based upon conversion to Islam. Background and Early Years The Crusades left a wake of distrust and enmity between the West and the Islamic World. Over centuries, the English developed preconceived notions of Muslims that were well-entrenched by the Victorian era. These ideas were an underlying force behind the bigotry the Liverpool Muslims faced, but they do not fully explain the level of vitriol displayed. According to Gilham and his reading of convert Djaffar Mortimore’s take on the issue, even the Muslim converts were hesitant to join Islam due to a general “antipathy to other faiths, naturally imbued from the cradle of western teaching.”6 On the other hand, Geaves attributes the hate directed towards the fledgling Liverpudlian Muslim community as a reaction to political events in the Empire, specifically, “They would intensify during periods when Muslims were involved in rebellions against or in opposition to British colonial expansion.”7 Ansari suggests that the fanatical attacks were caused by local newspapers stirring up bigotry with ceaseless articles imbibed with the old stereotypes and prejudices about Islam’s supposed intolerance, backwardness, and unbridled support of polygamy.8 Lastly, Beckerlegge argues that the British Muslims’ defense of the Ottomans and support of the caliphate, a perceived “dual allegiance,” caused the strife. Beckerlegge’s argument, put in simpler terms, was that Muslim converts were considered traitors―native Britons turning away from societal norms and embracing the “enemy.” The latter theory appears to get at the mindset of the street toughs conducting most of the persecution, but it was likely some combination of all of the theories that played a role in building a hostile environment around the diminutive group. 2 As Brits, the Liverpool Muslims were regarded as having betrayed their upbringing, Christianity, and the Empire which was predicated on the superiority of British culture. They openly embraced eastern ideas and practices and were not satisfied with simply practicing their religion behind closed doors. One commenter, defending acts of violence against the converts wrote, “It is not the private and inoffensive worship of Mohammed that is objectionable, but the public advertisement of him.”9 The Liverpool Muslims publicly performed the call to prayer, and wore fezzes, turbans, and robes on occasion. Lastly, they not only converted to Islam, but actively sought new converts, thus compounding the other issues. Up to this point, most immigrant Muslims did not proselytize and were more likely to face hostility for their race or nationality than for their religion. On rare occasions, local newspapers described hate crimes and discrimination against the Liverpool Muslims, but most accounts come exclusively from articles in The Crescent and The Islamic World, weekly and monthly news periodicals of the Liverpool Moslem Institute (LMI) from 1893-1908. Details of non-violent episodes were initially common, but decreased in favor of reporting violent behavior such as assaults, vandalism, street fighting, and stone throwing. Information on non-violent and less-violent encounters only trickled out in annual reports of the LMI, reminiscences and histories of the group, and buried within news reports on events where the hate crime was mentioned as an afterthought. An example of reticence concerning commonplace violent acts comes from an 1891 account by Fatima E. Cates, the second convert and first woman of the group. She notes, “Now we have a nice little mosque, fairly comfortably furnished, but the mob still annoy us by throwing mud and stones; however, we persevere, and are still making fresh converts.”10 Persecution had become a facet of being Muslim in their mindset and experience. The incidence of violence was spread across the history of the LMI; however, some periods saw more aggression than others. The first decade (1887-1897)